IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.304 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.04.2025 __________________________________________________________________________ Om Prakash ……...Petitioner Versus Isha Thakur …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith and Ms. Saroj, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Piyush Rathore, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against respondent for her having wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the judgment dated 25.02.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.2569 of 2025, titled as Om Prakash Vs. HPSEBL and Another, whereby direction came to be issued to afore respondent to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. Since needful never came done at the behest of respondent, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, Mr. Piyush Rathore, Advocate, while placing on record copy of office order dated 29.03.2025, issued under the signatures of Executive Director (Pers.), H.P. State Electricity Board Limited, Shimla, states that 2 mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, stands duly complied with. 3. Having perused aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, this Court finds that after receipt of representation filed at the behest of petitioner, respondent considered the case of the petitioner, but rejected the same on the ground, as detailed in the office order. Since in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, there was only direction to consider the representation of the petitioner, no action of respondent can be said to be contumacious. Correctness of order passed in purported compliance of judgment alleged to have been violated cannot be looked into in these proceedings, rather for that purpose, petitioner is liable to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file substantive petition in the appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to order passed in purported compliance of judgment alleged to have been violated. April 02, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge